Xcentric Ventures, LLC et al v. Stanley et al

Filing 71

REPLY to Response to Motion re 64 MOTION for Order to Show Cause re Contempt filed by Xcentric Ventures, LLC(an Arizona Corporation), Ed Magedson(an individual). (Speth, Maria)

Xcentric Ventures, LLC et al v. Stanley et al

Doc. 71

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
JABURG & WILK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

Kraig J. Marton, #003816 [e-mail] Maria Crimi Speth, #012574 [e-mail] Adam S. Kunz, #018827 [e-mail] Laura A. Rogal, #025159 [e-mail] JABURG & WILK, P.C. 3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an Arizona corporation, d/b/a "RIPOFFREPORT.COM"; ED MAGEDSON, an individual Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM "BILL" STANLEY, an individual; WILLIAM "BILL" STANLEY d/b/a DEFAMATION ACTION.COM; WILLIAM "BILL" STANLEY d/b/a COMPLAINTREMOVER.COM; WILLIAM "BILL" STANLEY aka JIM RICKSON; WILLIAM "BILL" STANLEY aka MATT JOHNSON; ROBERT RUSSO, an individual; ROBERT RUSSO d/b/a COMPLAINTREMOVER.COM; ROBERT RUSSO d/b/a DEFENDMYNAME.COM; ROBERT RUSSO d/b/a QED MEDIA GROUP, L.L.C.; QED MEDIA GROUP, L.L.C.; QED MEDIA GROUP, L.L.C. d/b/a DEFENDMYNAME.COM; QED MEDIA GROUP, L.L.C. d/b/a COMPLAINTREMOVER.COM; DEFAMATION ACTION LEAGUE, an unincorporated association; and INTERNET DEFAMATION LEAGUE, an unincorporated association; Defendants.
10297-1/LAR/LAR/612360_v1

Case No: 2:07-cv-00954-NVW REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 2:07-cv-00954-NVW

Document 71

Filed 09/27/2007

Page 1 of 4
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
JABURG & WILK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

ROBERT RUSSO, an individual; QED MEDIA GROUP, L.L.C., a Maine limited liability corporation, Counterclaimants, v. ED MAGEDSON, an individual, Counterdefendant. Plaintiffs Xcentric Ventures, LLC ("Xcentric") and Ed Magedson ("Magedson") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") submit the following Reply in Support of their Motion for an Order that Defendants William Stanley and Robert Russo appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt of Court for having failed to fully comply with the Preliminary Injunction issued by this Court on June 21, 2007. Plaintiffs have provided ample evidence to the Court that the actions of Defendants William Stanley and Robert Russo are so intertwined and interrelated that Russo's actions, as described in the original Motion for Order To Show Cause Re: Contempt, violate the Preliminary Injunction and thus warrant a finding of contempt against Defendant Russo. Based on Plaintiffs' original Motion, on September 6, 2007, this Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion and requested that Plaintiffs lodge a proposed form of order to show cause. See Order dated September 6, 2007, Docket No. 66. Despite this Order, on September 17, 2007, Defendants Robert Russo, QED Media Group, and Internet Defamation League (collectively, the "QED Defendants") filed a "Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Order To Show Cause Re: Contempt". Although so styled, it appears that the true motive of the QED Defendants "Response" is to actually ask for reconsideration of the Preliminary Injunction. Since the QED Defendants have provided no justification for doing so, and have attempted to sneak such a procedurally improper request into an untimely "Response" to a motion that has already been granted, Plaintiffs' request that this Court deny the QED Defendants' request to be given an opportunity to present evidence in support of modifying the Preliminary Injunction. 2
10297-1/LAR/LAR/612360_v1

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 2:07-cv-00954-NVW

Document 71

Filed 09/27/2007

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
JABURG & WILK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

The sole purpose of the hearing should be to require Defendants Stanley and Russo to show cause why they are not in contempt. The Preliminary Injunction identifies specific actions that, if participated in, would violate the Preliminary Injunction. These actions, numbered 1 through 10 in the Preliminary Injunction, apply to all Defendants, including Robert Russo. Russo has acted in concert with Stanley to disobey the

instructions of the Preliminary Injunction. It should be noted by the Court that whereas Plaintiffs' original Motion contained twenty exhibits, all evidencing the unquestionable relationship between Defendants Stanley and Russo, the QED Parties' response contains zero exhibits. Instead, the QED Parties request that the Court merely rely on a statement in the pleading, unsupported by any evidence or affidavit, disagreeing with Russo's involvement in the creation of the prohibited websites. Even if the maintenance of the websites named in the Preliminary Injunction was the sole basis for finding the Defendants in contempt, which it is not, the QED Parties are so involved in the control and direction of Defendant Stanley's activities that a finding of contempt based entirely on the activities of Stanley necessitates a finding of contempt against the QED Parties as well. Defendants Stanley and Russo have a long history of sharing and acting on shared information, sharing computer servers, sharing website content, and using the same telephone numbers. This past continues on through the present, and, as demonstrated in the original Motion, consists of actions in direct violation of the Preliminary Injunction. It is appropriate for the Court to order the Defendants William Stanley and Robert Russo to show cause why an order of civil contempt should not be issued against them and to award Plaintiffs their reasonable damages proximately caused by Defendants' contempt of

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

.... .... .... 3
10297-1/LAR/LAR/612360_v1

Case 2:07-cv-00954-NVW

Document 71

Filed 09/27/2007

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
JABURG & WILK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012

court. Plaintiffs renew their request that the Court set a hearing ordering Defendants William Stanley and Robert Russo to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court. DATED this 27th day of September, 2007 JABURG & WILK, P.C. s/ Maria Crimi Speth Maria Crimi Speth Attorneys for Plaintiffs Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on September 27, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Teresa Kay Anderson Snell & Wilmer LLP One Arizona Center 400 E Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004 Michael Kent Dana Snell & Wilmer LLP 400 E Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-0001 Attorneys for Defendants Robert Russo, QED Media Group, LLC and Internet Defamation League With a COPY of the foregoing emailed this 27th day of September, 2007, to: William "Bill" Stanley [e-mail] [e-mail] With a COPY of the foregoing hand delivered the 28th day of September, 2007, to: Honorable Neil V Wake United States District Court District of Arizona s/Debra Gower 4
10297-1/LAR/LAR/612360_v1

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:07-cv-00954-NVW

Document 71

Filed 09/27/2007

Page 4 of 4